Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
Aug 1st 2006 | 10:58 pm
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed
Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
>>>The light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent to
>>>1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same
>>>as that of sunlight.
>>Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in sunlight
>>(especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated windows of a
>>gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.) You only have to look
>>at the use of flash as an effective light source for UV flourescent
>>photography to see that made very clear.
>
>
> There is enough UV in sunlight to make things fluoresce (I don't know
> what "flourescence" is). If there were significantly more UV in flash,
> you'd need special filters to deal with it - and you don't, a UV filter
> makes *less* difference with flash photography than it does to outdoor
> shots.
>
For about the last thirty-five years, commercial camera xenon tubes have
been anti-UV coated, the first being sold by Sunpak as their 'Gold Tube'
series. This put an end to the excessively blue results from electronic
flash on colour film. Some really old flash units, like Braun Hobby or
the first Metz press guns, have uncoated tubes and so do many 1950s-60s
and early 1970s battery guns.
Studio flash tubes didn't start to be UV-filter coated until the mid
1980s, it took some time to catch up, and many makers instead used a
glass protective dome which was made in plain or warm transmission, both
types being UV-blocking. Today nearly all standard studio strobe
replacement tubes are colour balance coated.
The ban implemented by museums is not unreasonable. The flash might
seemn to be insignificant, compared to years of previous exposure to
sun, but flash also has an effect on the air - can't remember exactly
what, maybe ozone levels - caused by the whole electronic thing.
Around 1985, Colab of Coventry installed a special pulsed xenon (flash)
colour negative printing system which was able to make 30 x 40 inch
prints almost instantly, reducing the price. In the past, long exposures
were needed and giant print systems were not that economical. They very
quickly found themselves in trouble from professionals who ordered runs
of 50 or more prints from a single negative - by the end of 50
exposures, the dyes in the negative were sufficiently destroyed by the
high power flash to alter the colour of the print, and ruin the negative
for future use. They had to make copy negatives before undertaking very
long print runs using the xenon printer.
Today, they just scan the neg once, and print the digital file thousands
of times to any size they care. No more fading negs.
David
>>>The light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent to
>>>1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same
>>>as that of sunlight.
>>Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in sunlight
>>(especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated windows of a
>>gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.) You only have to look
>>at the use of flash as an effective light source for UV flourescent
>>photography to see that made very clear.
>
>
> There is enough UV in sunlight to make things fluoresce (I don't know
> what "flourescence" is). If there were significantly more UV in flash,
> you'd need special filters to deal with it - and you don't, a UV filter
> makes *less* difference with flash photography than it does to outdoor
> shots.
>
For about the last thirty-five years, commercial camera xenon tubes have
been anti-UV coated, the first being sold by Sunpak as their 'Gold Tube'
series. This put an end to the excessively blue results from electronic
flash on colour film. Some really old flash units, like Braun Hobby or
the first Metz press guns, have uncoated tubes and so do many 1950s-60s
and early 1970s battery guns.
Studio flash tubes didn't start to be UV-filter coated until the mid
1980s, it took some time to catch up, and many makers instead used a
glass protective dome which was made in plain or warm transmission, both
types being UV-blocking. Today nearly all standard studio strobe
replacement tubes are colour balance coated.
The ban implemented by museums is not unreasonable. The flash might
seemn to be insignificant, compared to years of previous exposure to
sun, but flash also has an effect on the air - can't remember exactly
what, maybe ozone levels - caused by the whole electronic thing.
Around 1985, Colab of Coventry installed a special pulsed xenon (flash)
colour negative printing system which was able to make 30 x 40 inch
prints almost instantly, reducing the price. In the past, long exposures
were needed and giant print systems were not that economical. They very
quickly found themselves in trouble from professionals who ordered runs
of 50 or more prints from a single negative - by the end of 50
exposures, the dyes in the negative were sufficiently destroyed by the
high power flash to alter the colour of the print, and ruin the negative
for future use. They had to make copy negatives before undertaking very
long print runs using the xenon printer.
Today, they just scan the neg once, and print the digital file thousands
of times to any size they care. No more fading negs.
David
Aug 1st 2006 | 11:10 pm
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Laws, and their implementation are a political issue. And believe me, I am
> well prepared for it.....I have been living with the stupidity of it all
> of my life, and things are getting worse, not better. - It's called, "Lack
> of discrimination", and it's the mark of the dumbing down of
> America........The very idea that you can't make a law without exceptions
> is a stupid idea. If I am crossing the desert on my motorcycle, and I come
> across a person dying of thirst, can I tie them to me and carry them to
> water, or must I leave them there because I don't carry an extra helmet
> with me, and the law says, "You can't ride on a motorcycle without a
> helmet....No exceptions"?
Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
photography within its walls?
That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
right to photograph anything without permission.
> Laws, and their implementation are a political issue. And believe me, I am
> well prepared for it.....I have been living with the stupidity of it all
> of my life, and things are getting worse, not better. - It's called, "Lack
> of discrimination", and it's the mark of the dumbing down of
> America........The very idea that you can't make a law without exceptions
> is a stupid idea. If I am crossing the desert on my motorcycle, and I come
> across a person dying of thirst, can I tie them to me and carry them to
> water, or must I leave them there because I don't carry an extra helmet
> with me, and the law says, "You can't ride on a motorcycle without a
> helmet....No exceptions"?
Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
photography within its walls?
That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
right to photograph anything without permission.
Aug 1st 2006 | 11:16 pm
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why the
> idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks that
there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The ruling was
handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were being denied
what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
You are confusing two things:
1: What you want.
2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
rulings.
Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
high courts.
news:[email protected]. ..
> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why the
> idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks that
there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The ruling was
handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were being denied
what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
You are confusing two things:
1: What you want.
2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
rulings.
Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
high courts.
Aug 1st 2006 | 11:31 pm
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
The issue is naturally most photographic. Have something to do with shutter
speeds perhaps?
"jeremy" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
>> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
>> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
>> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why
>> the idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
> The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks
> that there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The
> ruling was handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were
> being denied what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
> You are confusing two things:
> 1: What you want.
> 2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
> If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
> that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
> across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
> couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
> rulings.
> Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
> high courts.
>
speeds perhaps?
"jeremy" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
>> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
>> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
>> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why
>> the idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
> The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks
> that there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The
> ruling was handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were
> being denied what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
> You are confusing two things:
> 1: What you want.
> 2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
> If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
> that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
> across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
> couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
> rulings.
> Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
> high courts.
>
Aug 2nd 2006 | 12:12 am
#80
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Bart van der Wolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message
> > news:[email protected]...
> SNIP
> >> Nonsense. (We've been through this one over and over again).
> >> The light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent
> >> to 1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same
> >> as that of sunlight.
> >
> > Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in
> > sunlight (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated
> > windows of a gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.)
> Care to cite references to that, as it seems that the total flux
> (intensity times duration) is considerably less than from a continuous
> exposure to ambient lighting.
> Bart
Ummm, where did I say anything about the light flux? I just pointed out
that the statement made by Jack Campin "and the spectrum is the same as that
of sunlight" is false. I specifically said that I didn't know about the
other aspects of his post, and was correcting just that one point.
Peter
news:[email protected]...
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message
> > news:[email protected]...
> SNIP
> >> Nonsense. (We've been through this one over and over again).
> >> The light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent
> >> to 1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same
> >> as that of sunlight.
> >
> > Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in
> > sunlight (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated
> > windows of a gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.)
> Care to cite references to that, as it seems that the total flux
> (intensity times duration) is considerably less than from a continuous
> exposure to ambient lighting.
> Bart
Ummm, where did I say anything about the light flux? I just pointed out
that the statement made by Jack Campin "and the spectrum is the same as that
of sunlight" is false. I specifically said that I didn't know about the
other aspects of his post, and was correcting just that one point.
Peter
Aug 2nd 2006 | 12:27 am
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Jack Campin - bogus address" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> The light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent to
> >> 1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same
> >> as that of sunlight.
> > Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in
> > sunlight (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated
> > windows of a gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.) You only
> > have to look at the use of flash as an effective light source for UV
> > flourescent photography to see that made very clear.
> There is enough UV in sunlight to make things fluoresce (I don't know
> what "flourescence" is). If there were significantly more UV in flash,
> you'd need special filters to deal with it - and you don't, a UV filter
> makes *less* difference with flash photography than it does to
> outdoor shots.
Ummm, no. UV filters are specifically recommended for use with flash. Ever
noticed how blue slides shot with electronic flash can be? At high altitude
or over the sea you will see more effect by using a UV filter with sunlight,
but the rest of the time you'll find the effect slight - much more
noticeable with flash.
Add-on UV absorbing domes are a common accessory for studio flash units, but
for a variety of practical reasons most photographers prefer to filter out
the UV at the lens rather than on the flash head - unless, for example,
photographing fabrics that fluoresce and needing accurate colour rendidtion
without any shift added to the visible light by that small component.
> The way those fluorescent shots are done is simply by using sensitive
> film and strong UV filters, since fluorescence is never very strong.
> The reason these shots are done in the dark is because the other
> wavelengths in sunlight are so bright you can't see the fluorescence.
In scientific applications they're more usually done today with a specific
UV source, but in the past have been done with electronic flash fitered to
block the visible, and UV filters on the camera lens. (Before that an arc
could serve the same purpose.) I've done it myself with fluorescent dyes
and electronic flash, and it works well.
> There's a neat fluorescent minerals display in the museum in Leiden,
> you can only see it in the dark for this reason. The minerals are
> fluorescing away all the time when the curtains are open, you just
> can't see it for reflected light.
Well, obviously one wouldn't see it in full daylight. I'll look out for
that display next time I'm in that direction, thanks.
Peter
news:[email protected]...
> >> The light flux on the subject from a flash is typically equivalent to
> >> 1/60 of a second of direct sunlight, and the spectrum is the same
> >> as that of sunlight.
> > Umm, there's lots more UV in electronic flash than there is in
> > sunlight (especially sunlight that has been through the UV coated
> > windows of a gallery, even in those that are daylight lit.) You only
> > have to look at the use of flash as an effective light source for UV
> > flourescent photography to see that made very clear.
> There is enough UV in sunlight to make things fluoresce (I don't know
> what "flourescence" is). If there were significantly more UV in flash,
> you'd need special filters to deal with it - and you don't, a UV filter
> makes *less* difference with flash photography than it does to
> outdoor shots.
Ummm, no. UV filters are specifically recommended for use with flash. Ever
noticed how blue slides shot with electronic flash can be? At high altitude
or over the sea you will see more effect by using a UV filter with sunlight,
but the rest of the time you'll find the effect slight - much more
noticeable with flash.
Add-on UV absorbing domes are a common accessory for studio flash units, but
for a variety of practical reasons most photographers prefer to filter out
the UV at the lens rather than on the flash head - unless, for example,
photographing fabrics that fluoresce and needing accurate colour rendidtion
without any shift added to the visible light by that small component.
> The way those fluorescent shots are done is simply by using sensitive
> film and strong UV filters, since fluorescence is never very strong.
> The reason these shots are done in the dark is because the other
> wavelengths in sunlight are so bright you can't see the fluorescence.
In scientific applications they're more usually done today with a specific
UV source, but in the past have been done with electronic flash fitered to
block the visible, and UV filters on the camera lens. (Before that an arc
could serve the same purpose.) I've done it myself with fluorescent dyes
and electronic flash, and it works well.
> There's a neat fluorescent minerals display in the museum in Leiden,
> you can only see it in the dark for this reason. The minerals are
> fluorescing away all the time when the curtains are open, you just
> can't see it for reflected light.
Well, obviously one wouldn't see it in full daylight. I'll look out for
that display next time I'm in that direction, thanks.
Peter
Aug 2nd 2006 | 4:13 am
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
<fairly good answers, actually>
...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore
how the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
liberal/conservative distinctions.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
<fairly good answers, actually>
...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore
how the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
liberal/conservative distinctions.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 2nd 2006 | 4:22 am
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Chris Loffredo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Painting are *not* normally restored because they "fade".
> The colors change because of accumulated dirt and the varnish becoming
> more opaque.
> They are cleaned, not "repainted", to make the colors brighter.
While the above is true, it is worth mentioning that while fading of
colors is not the *reason* painting are restored, and indeed, the
restoration process does not generally help with faded colors, the
colors mostly certainly *do* fade over time - or would, if lighting
weren't controlled. We simply live with this, as the only way to
"restore" color lost through fading would be to essentially repaint the
thing. The fact is, restore or not, a great many older paintings do not
look today the way they did when they were painted, and no amount of
restoration will fix that. We have a much greater understanding of the
properties of various materials and pigments today than we did a few
centuries ago, so today's paintings are more likely to hold up well.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
> Painting are *not* normally restored because they "fade".
> The colors change because of accumulated dirt and the varnish becoming
> more opaque.
> They are cleaned, not "repainted", to make the colors brighter.
While the above is true, it is worth mentioning that while fading of
colors is not the *reason* painting are restored, and indeed, the
restoration process does not generally help with faded colors, the
colors mostly certainly *do* fade over time - or would, if lighting
weren't controlled. We simply live with this, as the only way to
"restore" color lost through fading would be to essentially repaint the
thing. The fact is, restore or not, a great many older paintings do not
look today the way they did when they were painted, and no amount of
restoration will fix that. We have a much greater understanding of the
properties of various materials and pigments today than we did a few
centuries ago, so today's paintings are more likely to hold up well.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
[email protected]
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Aug 2nd 2006 | 4:24 am
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:13:55 -0600, "Marc Sabatella"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
><fairly good answers, actually>
>...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore
>how the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
>liberal/conservative distinctions.
or the subject?
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
><fairly good answers, actually>
>...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore
>how the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
>liberal/conservative distinctions.
or the subject?
--
Martin
Aug 2nd 2006 | 10:50 am
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
>> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
>> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
>> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why
>> the idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
> The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks
> that there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The
> ruling was handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were
> being denied what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
> You are confusing two things:
> 1: What you want.
> 2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
> If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
> that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
> across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
> couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
> rulings.
> Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
> high courts.
And the fact that the IRS has a separate tax table for married couples
doesn't say anything to you? - You have a strange idea of what the, "spirit
of the document" means when it comes to constitutional law........but that's
not surprising to me......Also, the fact that the law has already been
interpreted by the supreme court, does not make it right. - Only "legal".
Many powerful people in the past, and still many more in the future, have
been, and will be....dead wrong. It is the responsibility of people like me
(and you) to point out those wrongs, and fight against them. - I intend to
do that until my last breath.
All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
people. And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people,
they why not let them be married? Where is your common sense and sense of
justice, man?
news:ZP%zg.7711$oz.5967@trnddc07...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]. ..
>> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional. The IRS set up a
>> separate tax table for married couples way back in the 50's. From that
>> time on, gays should have been able to marry. - I don't understand why
>> the idiots on the supreme court haven't said that.
> The Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled within the past two weeks
> that there is NO presumed "right" for same-sex couples to marry. The
> ruling was handed down on a case where plaintiffs argued that they were
> being denied what they said were their "constitutional rights" to marry.
> You are confusing two things:
> 1: What you want.
> 2: What the courts interpret the law to actually mean.
> If you are arguing that same sex marriage ought to be the law of the land,
> that is one thing, but if you are suggesting that marriage license bureaus
> across America are operating illegally when they deny licenses to same sex
> couples, that is simply false. They are following appropriate court
> rulings.
> Clearly your private judgment does not trump that of our federal and state
> high courts.
And the fact that the IRS has a separate tax table for married couples
doesn't say anything to you? - You have a strange idea of what the, "spirit
of the document" means when it comes to constitutional law........but that's
not surprising to me......Also, the fact that the law has already been
interpreted by the supreme court, does not make it right. - Only "legal".
Many powerful people in the past, and still many more in the future, have
been, and will be....dead wrong. It is the responsibility of people like me
(and you) to point out those wrongs, and fight against them. - I intend to
do that until my last breath.
All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
people. And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people,
they why not let them be married? Where is your common sense and sense of
justice, man?
Aug 2nd 2006 | 10:51 am
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]. ..
[ . . . ]
> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional.
That's like saying a ban on men giving birth is "blatently [sic]
unconstitutional."
Marriage is, and always has been, the legal union of a man and a woman.
That's not a matter of anything being banned or not banned, legal or
illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, it's a matter of definition.
What "gay" (meaning homosexual -- not cheerful, lighthearted, merry, bright
or lively) activists want is to change the definition, just as they have
pretty thoroughly done with "gay."
If marriage can, willy nilly, be made to mean something it never meant
before, why stop at homosexual couples? Why, for example, shouldn't a
shepherd be able to marry his ewe?
For that matter, I remember reading many years ago about a fellow who wanted
to marry his television set. How he expected this to enhance his
relationship with the boob tube I have no idea, but I don't think he
succeeded in getting a marriage license. How unfair! How "unconstitutional"!
What narrow-mindedness and bigotry!
Neil
news:[email protected]. ..
[ . . . ]
> Bans on gay marriage are blatently unconstitutional.
That's like saying a ban on men giving birth is "blatently [sic]
unconstitutional."
Marriage is, and always has been, the legal union of a man and a woman.
That's not a matter of anything being banned or not banned, legal or
illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, it's a matter of definition.
What "gay" (meaning homosexual -- not cheerful, lighthearted, merry, bright
or lively) activists want is to change the definition, just as they have
pretty thoroughly done with "gay."
If marriage can, willy nilly, be made to mean something it never meant
before, why stop at homosexual couples? Why, for example, shouldn't a
shepherd be able to marry his ewe?
For that matter, I remember reading many years ago about a fellow who wanted
to marry his television set. How he expected this to enhance his
relationship with the boob tube I have no idea, but I don't think he
succeeded in getting a marriage license. How unfair! How "unconstitutional"!
What narrow-mindedness and bigotry!
Neil
Aug 2nd 2006 | 10:59 am
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[ . . . ]
> All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
> people.
Absolutely! Homosexuals ("gay people") have exactly the same rights as
everyone else.
> And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people, they
> why not let them be married?
They *can* be married! Where did you ever get the idea that they couldn't?
There are many homosexuals who are married, and under precisely the same
conditions as heterosexuals.
> Where is your common sense and sense of justice, man?
Where's the injustice? The same rules and conditions apply to all.
Neil
news:[email protected]...
[ . . . ]
> All men are equal in the eyes of the law. - And that includes gay
> people.
Absolutely! Homosexuals ("gay people") have exactly the same rights as
everyone else.
> And, if they have all the rights and privileges of married people, they
> why not let them be married?
They *can* be married! Where did you ever get the idea that they couldn't?
There are many homosexuals who are married, and under precisely the same
conditions as heterosexuals.
> Where is your common sense and sense of justice, man?
Where's the injustice? The same rules and conditions apply to all.
Neil
Aug 2nd 2006 | 11:00 am
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Marc Sabatella" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <fairly good answers, actually>
> ...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore how
> the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
> liberal/conservative distinctions.
But it is the liberal who insists that the law is right and must be obeyed
simply because it is the law. I maintain that many laws are wrong, and
responsible people should disobey them. To obey them when you know that they
are wrong is to subvert your responsibility for your own convenience.
See, "Judgment at Nuremberg".........
news:[email protected]...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <fairly good answers, actually>
> ...but the questions, of course, were rhetorical, meant to underscore how
> the issue of "blanket" laws has absolutely nothing to do with
> liberal/conservative distinctions.
But it is the liberal who insists that the law is right and must be obeyed
simply because it is the law. I maintain that many laws are wrong, and
responsible people should disobey them. To obey them when you know that they
are wrong is to subvert your responsibility for your own convenience.
See, "Judgment at Nuremberg".........
Aug 2nd 2006 | 11:10 am
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"Chris Loffredo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> William Graham wrote:
>> Most museum paintings fade with time anyway. they are continuously
>> having them "restored" by experts that specialize in such
>> things.....Today the experts can work from color photographs that were
>> taken when the paintings were in good condition....
> Painting are *not* normally restored because they "fade".
> The colors change because of accumulated dirt and the varnish becoming
> more opaque.
> They are cleaned, not "repainted", to make the colors brighter.
> William, you really shouldn't post about things you know nothing about
> (culture - esp. non USA - and politics).
Who said they were, "repainted"? - That is your word, not mine.....Chris,
you really should read what I write more carefully. You might learn a lot of
things that you presently know nothing about.
news:[email protected]...
> William Graham wrote:
>> Most museum paintings fade with time anyway. they are continuously
>> having them "restored" by experts that specialize in such
>> things.....Today the experts can work from color photographs that were
>> taken when the paintings were in good condition....
> Painting are *not* normally restored because they "fade".
> The colors change because of accumulated dirt and the varnish becoming
> more opaque.
> They are cleaned, not "repainted", to make the colors brighter.
> William, you really shouldn't post about things you know nothing about
> (culture - esp. non USA - and politics).
Who said they were, "repainted"? - That is your word, not mine.....Chris,
you really should read what I write more carefully. You might learn a lot of
things that you presently know nothing about.
Aug 2nd 2006 | 11:16 am
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Tripods and monopods in Italian museums, monopod shutter speed rule
"jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:sK%zg.7709$oz.6967@trnddc07...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Laws, and their implementation are a political issue. And believe me, I
>> am well prepared for it.....I have been living with the stupidity of it
>> all of my life, and things are getting worse, not better. - It's called,
>> "Lack of discrimination", and it's the mark of the dumbing down of
>> America........The very idea that you can't make a law without exceptions
>> is a stupid idea. If I am crossing the desert on my motorcycle, and I
>> come across a person dying of thirst, can I tie them to me and carry them
>> to water, or must I leave them there because I don't carry an extra
>> helmet with me, and the law says, "You can't ride on a motorcycle without
>> a helmet....No exceptions"?
> Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
> photography within its walls?
I am arguing that a taxpayer supported museum must, (or at least should) be
beholden to the needs of the taxpayers who support it.
> That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
> right to photograph anything without permission.
And exactly whose, "permission" should the taxpayers be beholden too? - I
claim that as a taxpayer, I am the one who should determine who should use
the museum, and exactly how it should be used. - Otherwise, please give me
my money back, thank you........
news:sK%zg.7709$oz.6967@trnddc07...
> "William Graham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Laws, and their implementation are a political issue. And believe me, I
>> am well prepared for it.....I have been living with the stupidity of it
>> all of my life, and things are getting worse, not better. - It's called,
>> "Lack of discrimination", and it's the mark of the dumbing down of
>> America........The very idea that you can't make a law without exceptions
>> is a stupid idea. If I am crossing the desert on my motorcycle, and I
>> come across a person dying of thirst, can I tie them to me and carry them
>> to water, or must I leave them there because I don't carry an extra
>> helmet with me, and the law says, "You can't ride on a motorcycle without
>> a helmet....No exceptions"?
> Are you arguing that a museum is barred from setting restrictions on
> photography within its walls?
I am arguing that a taxpayer supported museum must, (or at least should) be
beholden to the needs of the taxpayers who support it.
> That is their right. One's purchase of an admission does not confer the
> right to photograph anything without permission.
And exactly whose, "permission" should the taxpayers be beholden too? - I
claim that as a taxpayer, I am the one who should determine who should use
the museum, and exactly how it should be used. - Otherwise, please give me
my money back, thank you........
